outhouse
Atheistically
Unsubstantiated rhetoric, is it not?
You have zero evidence for such, correct?
Unsubstantiated, and im guessing you have no credible source to back your opinion?
Unsubstantiated, more opinion and less evidence, correct?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent design, my version.
- Thread starter Lyndon
- Start date
Unsubstantiated rhetoric, is it not?
You have zero evidence for such, correct?
Unsubstantiated, and im guessing you have no credible source to back your opinion?
Unsubstantiated, more opinion and less evidence, correct?
outhouse
Atheistically
Evolution is now fact. It is not up for debate. We just have certain theist that refuse modern education.
outhouse
Atheistically
If you had a education on this topic you would understand that a scientific theory is made up from facts, and science will never label the scientific theory as fact, no matter how solid the evidence is. That is not how science works. Science does not prove, it observes and reports.
Don't confuse the theory aspect for the facts which are reported on from being observed. Evolution is both fact and theory.
Were just waiting for theist to catch up at this point, which means they need to loose the fanaticism and fundamentalism and accept modern education taught in every credible university around the world.
outhouse
Atheistically
Beyond wishful thinking, and want, what evidence do you have?
ID goes directly against the biblical mythology as written, so every aspect of IS is made by modern theist who cannot accept modern education.
ID has been proven in a court of law to be pseudo science.
My father is a world respected Microbiologist, I know quite a lot about science and the scientific method, thank you, what we're talking about here is a natural process. Science cannot deny that any God has some influence in natural processes, there is no way to prove it for certain, one way or the other.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I've always looked at creationism as a desperate scream of affirmation: Science simply HAS to be wrong. It HAS to be wrong if my faith is to survive. Therefore: it IS wrong. . . . . . . . . . . . no matter what.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just as it cannot deny that I farted last Tuesday morning. But, so what?
God is able and ready to reach or back away from any person where they stand.
The only reason there is any survival is because God exists. If a person is no use to God they are no use at all.
There are aspects in the self that are ruled from with in the mind and sit behind the personality. It is easier to see fault in others than in own self.
This ruler has a kingdom with subjects and determines behavior in all endeavor from family dysfunction to war, risk taking to accidents. His methods are obvious but cannot be resisted and all outcomes are seen.
There is evidence in outcomes.
The kingdom of God offers immortality and enables a breaking free of the kingdom of Satan in the self and empowered personality.
A new nature if taken up is free of encumbering and debilitating personality flaws.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
One would think such influences and interactions would be noticible in some regard. It would lead one to ask as to why the speculation in the first place? Is there anything at all specific atm that can be pointed out which could lead towards thinking there is id, or is it just the complexity and limitations of technology at present by which id is entertained?
I am interested in what evolution is because how could a single cell need or decide it would change into an eye for instance. Would the first ever cell have all the information for every combination ever possible. Or is it simply mutations occurring because of some pressure out of the environment.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No evolutionist has ever suggested that that occurred. Here is a reasonable scenario:
Simple Explanation of the Evolution of the Eye (from PBS/WGBH Educational Foundation)
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Richard Dawkins describes the evolution of the eye:
McBell
Unbound
I completely agree.
Though i should in all honesty point out that the only time I ever hear this claim is from theists who use it as a strawman, just like you did in the above quoted post.
No evolutionist has ever suggested that that occurred. Here is a reasonable scenario:
Simple Explanation of the Evolution of the Eye (from PBS/WGBH Educational Foundation)
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
Not being an expert I have watched presentations by some prominent scientists and there were many examples of how complex arrangements needed more than one part to compliment the whole all together at the same time. But it is a difficult subject and not that much of an interest to me to study it to the depth required.
The odds of life occurring and developing the way it has are hard to fathom. Scientists once said life should not exist at all but here it is.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes they can, factually nothing can be attributed to the concept.
Actually there is evidence creation is mythology.
There is no evidence at all creation exist, outside mythology.
Correct?
outhouse
Atheistically
That's great if you can prove god exist. Can you?
As it stands that is opinion, and unsubstantiated.
Not for anything that exist outside mythology, is there?
outhouse
Atheistically
Wrong. Those who are making the claim need to prove it.
You have no evidence outside mythology do you?
We have evidence that creation mythology has existed for thousands of years in many different cultures.
And by your fallacy your own methodology fails miserably, as YOU have the minority position with ID. Most theist have different creation accounts, many view as mythology.
Every credible university around the world teaches evolution as fact, because it is.